Appeal 2007-0414
Application 10/691,113
[Appellant contends] that the manner in which Johnson et al. teach the
formation of such coated additive target molecules does not anticipate
claims 16 and 21-37” (principal Br. 11, second para.). Appellants maintain
that the additive target molecule of Johnson is mixed with the amphiphilic
copolymer in the process solvent prior to precipitation, but Johnson does not
teach that “the additive target molecule and the amphiphilic copolymer
should be headed into a mixing zone as separate solution streams as
claimed” (id.). However, as pointed out by the Examiner, paragraph [0045]
of Johnson expressly states that “[i]n one embodiment of the invention,
amphiphilic copolymer and additive target molecule are introduced into the
mixing vessel via different solvent streams” (emphasis added).
Consequently, we find that this argument of Appellants is also without merit.
In essence, it is our finding that although Johnson does not provide a
figure or example which describes all the features of the claimed process, we
agree with the Examiner that Johnson, as a whole, fairly describes the
claimed method within the meaning of § 102.
As for the § 103 rejection of claim 6 over Johnson in view of Holl, we
fully concur with the Examiner that Holl evidences the obviousness of
spacing the surface of the rotating rotor at a distance of 0.1 mm to about
2.5 mm from the inner wall of the chamber. Appellants have not refuted the
Examiner’s finding that such spacing was known in the art to avoid
introducing Taylor vortices in order to facilitate a more complete, uniform
mixing of the introduced solutions (see Answer 7, last sentence). We also
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013